From DeeI saw a commercial on SyFy Channel tonight by a US law firm, recruiting signatories to a major classaction suit against Tylenol's makers, McNeil-PPC.... for liver damage, liver transplant as a result of liver damage, or death after taking Tylenol.This suit will not be announced until it is filed, which it won't be until they have their list of victims.More to come on this one...if you watch US television, keep an eye out. There are a lot of class actions being formed as we speak, for big-name drugs. Interesting that these lawfirms advertise extensively on television for people to join the lawsuits, but we never hear much about them as they get buried in the news.... gosh, I wonder why. Maybe it's time we all shared that sort of news....

From DeeFrom the Douglass Report today:(And bear in mind these things are in vaccines, too, and can be stuck into ANYTHING...)

FDA's nano rules come a day late and a dollar short

Right now, you're playing guinea pig in the world's biggest biotech experiment as tiny untested particles are quietly dumped into your food, drink, cosmetics, and more -- and no one has any idea what they'll do to you in the long run.

Conspiracy theory? No way.

Microscopic nanoparticles have been added to virtually everything over the past few years, and the FDA has sat back and done nothing to ensure their safety. And only now, when you can't avoid them even if you try, are they finally getting around to MAYBE proposing POSSIBLE rules that COULD take effect... SOMEDAY.

That's the FDA for you.

I'm surprised they've taken even this tiny step -- makes me wonder what made them wake up and smell the micronized particles (and yes, they're in your colognes and perfumes too).

Maybe it was the fact that we know these particles can be ingested, absorbed through the skin, and even inhaled from the air -- and once inside the body, they can cross the blood-brain barrier.

Or maybe it was the UCLA study that found nanoparticles can cause DNA and chromosome damage. Or the study that found commonly used particles kill human gut cells.

Or maybe it was the research that found these particles can kill nerve cells and POKE HOLES in the brain.

On the other hand, that last one could explain the FDA's complete inaction on this -- because you'd have to have a pretty big hole in your head to allow the widespread use of these micronized particles without any real testing.

Don't expect that to change anytime soon, despite the latest proposal. For an up-close look at how slowly the FDA normally operates, just take a look at the agency's "urgent" action to regulate antibiotics in livestock, first proposed in 1977.

Only now -- 35 years later -- are they turning that proposal into reality, and only because a court ordered them to.

In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for the newest proposal to lead to actual action... but you might want to hold your breath anyway so you don't inhale any of those particles.

From DeeThe Hon. Rob Nicholson,Minister of Justice,Government of CANADA

Mr. Minister:

Over a year ago you responded to an email from me in which I questioned you regarding the Consumer Product Safety Act, then called Bill C-36, and how it contravened the Rule of Law.You responded that I "must consider that your rights are subject to interpretation"; this response was upsetting to me, because this is contrary to everything I was taught in Civics classes regarding who "creates" the laws (Parliament) and who "interprets" the laws, including the Bill of Rights and our Constitution Act (the Supreme Court of Canada).

No further explanation was forthcoming from you at that time, and now I have a number of questions for you, to which I would like a direct response: the members of my organization (see below) as well as my many contacts across Canada are most eager to hear your answers. I trust I will not have to inform them that you have either failed or declined to respond.

My questions are these:

1. When you said our rights are "subject to interpretation", by whom are our rights to be interpreted? My understanding was that the Supreme Court has already interpreted them and there is no expiry date on that interpretation, nor has there been, to my knowledge, an Act of Parliament requiring such (re-) interpretation, so who is it, exactly, who is interpreting our rights, if not the Supreme Court?

2. Regardless of your answer to (1) above, by what mandate is the original interpretation of our rights able to be "subject to interpretation", and on whose authority?

3. Does your statement regarding the "reinterpretation" of our rights have anything to do with "international obligations" such as active trade agreements and/or associations, the WTO, etc.?

4. If your answer to (3) above is in the affirmative, what mandate allows the Government of Canada to put citizens' rights on a trading table, without their express and informed consent? Of course, if an effort was made to obtain the informed consent of the Canadian people, and I missed this information, I would certainly appreciate knowing when, how, and where this information was made public, since it obviously has a meaningful impact on all Canadians.

5. With reference to (4) above, which particular rights of Canadians are being re-interpreted? And is this re-interpretation connected in any way with "harmonization" to "international standards" created by the aforementioned "international obligations"? If so, when are you planning to explain how such harmonization is likely to affect our Canadian standards and allow Canadians the opportunity to reject such alteration? Surely, Canadians have the right to know, do they not?

5. Upon noting the vast array of trade agreements which Mr. Harper is undertaking at present ( See the National Post, April 13th ), and understanding that such agreements are enforceable international contracts which supercede domestic law, when is your government planning on informing Canadians of exactly how much of our sovereignty has been given away and is contemplated to be given away under all these agreements?

6. Do you personally feel that Canadians have the right to know when the very nature of their democracy is being fundamentally changed by their elected "representatives" and that they should be given a chance to make their own choices in that critical regard? Or do you feel that it is a proper practice to make binding agreements affecting Canadians, without open and honest consultation with the electorate?

7. Why is your government so secretive regarding the terms and real social, environmental, and economic costs to Canadians in advance of signing these binding agreements, which are presented as a fait accompli, and to which we are irrevocably bound? Most particularly, why is your government so silent on the fact that each signing reduces Canadian sovereignty, and why are Canadians being kept in ignorance of the facts in this regard? Of particular concern to me is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union, which is reputed to affect all levels of government, and of which Canadians have only the most superficial knowledge (including Members of Parliament).

Mr. Harper's caucus is very quick to claim that such agreements will assure the prosperity of Canadians, yet the records of existing agreements show that such is not the case. If Canadians had been openly and honestly consulted, there would not even be a NAFTA, since 74% of us were opposed to it in the first place. Yet your government continues to assure that all agreements are "in our best interest".

I am reminded of what many consider to be the definition of insanity: doing the same dumb thing over and over and each time expecting a different, better result. We have many examples of what hurts us: why is our government repeating the same mistakes?

I would think that as servants of the people of Canada, not their rulers, the first duty of a democratic government should always be to give the people as much information as possible, in order to gain their true opinion and thereby represent their wishes in governance. Stephen Harper and his team have been thus far less than forthcoming on the critical questions listed above, and I now call upon you to clarify for Canadians where their government stands with reference to the foregoing.